[1945] EACA 50
The court held that 'wilfully' in section 332(1) of the Penal Code encompasses not only deliberate and intentional acts but also reckless conduct. Although the appellant did not intend to damage the motor car, he acted in a manner that was reckless as to the result, and such recklessness satisfies the statutory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1945] EACA 50
- Parties
- Appellant: Mohamedali; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1945
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- Horne J, Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya)
- Legal Topics
- Malicious Damage to Property, Wilfulness, Recklessness, Penal Code Interpretation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mohamedali
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's actions constituted 'wilful' damage under section 332(1) of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether recklessness satisfies the requirement of 'wilfulness' for the offence charged.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that 'wilfully' in section 332(1) of the Penal Code encompasses not only deliberate and intentional acts but also reckless conduct. Although the appellant did not intend to damage the motor car, he acted in a manner that was reckless as to the result, and such recklessness satisfies the statutory requirement of 'wilfulness'. Both 'wilfulness' and 'unlawfulness' were proved, and the conviction was upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
### APPELLATE CRIMINAL
#### BEFORE LUCIE-SMITH, AG. C. J., AND HORNE, J.
# REX, Respondent
# $\mathbf{v}$ .
# MOHAMEDALI, Appellant Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1945
Criminal law—Malicious injury to property—Kenya Penal Code Section 332/1 "Wilfully".
The appellant appealed against his conviction of wilfully and unlawfully damaging a motor car contrary to s. 332 (1) of the Penal Code. The appellant struck at a person in a motor car and in so doing damaged the car. The appeal turned on the meaning of the word "wilfully".
Held (20-6-45).—That "wifully" means "deliberately and intentionally not by accident or inadvertence" and that although the accused achieved a result that he did not intend, he nevertheless achieved it in circumstances which show that he was reckless as to that result and that to act recklessly is to act wilfully.
Appeal dismissed.
Trivedi for the Appellant.
### Todd, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.—We do not consider that the authority quoted by the learned advocate for the appellant is applicable to this case. Our section 332 (1) Penal Code is different to sections 51 and 52 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861. The two necessary ingredients to the offence under our Code are "wilfulness" and "unlawfulness"—"wilfully" has been described as meaning "deliberately and intentionally not by accident or inadvertence". Although the accused achieved a result that he did not intend, he achieved it in circumstances which show that he was reckless as to that result and to act recklessly is to act wilfully.
In this case both the ingredients have been proved. We dismiss the appeal.